DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of such transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were found during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) ltd. reported

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of such transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were found during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) ltd. reported

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of such transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were found during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) ltd. reported

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee proved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of such transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were found during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) ltd. reported

BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND LEASE FIN PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

BALMUKUND SPONGE & IRON PVT. LTD.,,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3),, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act is rebuttable when the assessee\nproved that he has not done any such transactions even in respect of\nsuch transaction as were contained in the loose paper which were\nfound during the course of search. This was held by the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in case of PCIT Vs. Delco India (P.) Itd. reported

HARSHWARDHAN GEMS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

68 the assessment was made on this sum. The ITAT noted that the assessed was a Public Limited Company which had received subscriptions to the public issue through banking channels and the shares were allotted in consonance with the provisions of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 as also the Rules & Regulations of the Delhi Stock Exchange. Complete details appear

ITO, WARD - 12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HARSHWARDHAN GEMS P. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue and that of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

68 the assessment was made on this sum. The ITAT noted that the assessed was a Public Limited Company which had received subscriptions to the public issue through banking channels and the shares were allotted in consonance with the provisions of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 as also the Rules & Regulations of the Delhi Stock Exchange. Complete details appear

DCIT,CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. M/S ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL, SILIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Dcit Circle-1, V/S. Anand Kumar Agarwal Aayakar Bhawan, C/O Sky Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Paribahan Nagar, Paribahan Nagar, Matigar, Matigara, Siliguri, Pin Siliguri-734010 734010 [Pan No.Acrpa 8801 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenges Correctness Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 07.12.2016 In Case No.133/Cit(A)/Slg/2015-16, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Undisclosed On-Money Addition Of ₹1,10,00,000/-, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W 153C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Come To The Relevant Facts Pertaining To The Above Sole Issue. This Assessee Is Admittedly The Legal Heir Of Late Shri Bhanwarlal Agarwal. The Said Predecessor In Interest Co-Owned Capital Asset In Question Along With S/Sh R.K. Agarwal, Hanumnmal, Mahendra & Pawan Bansal(S). All The Said Joint Owners Sold The Relevant Asset On 21.01.2011 To M/S Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. For ₹3,58,25,000/- Received Through Banking Channel. The Assessee’S

section 292C adds more teeth to the department’s exercise in case of a search in a fiscal statute which has to be strictly interpreted without leaving scope for any intendment. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to above narrated rival submissions. The relevant facts are recapitulated once again. This assessee’s predecessor in interest had sold

SURESH JOSHI,HIND MOTOR vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits made in two bank accounts bearing A/c. Nos. 62790501311 and 6277053955 in ICICI Bank opened fraudulently in the name of Sarita Trading Company, alleged proprietary concern of the assessee and the other in the name of the assessee without appreciating that the said bank accounts are not owned by the assessee

VISTA TIE UP PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,63,023/- to the returned income.\n3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was contended that the AO had made the addition purely on the basis of third-party documents seized from M/s J.M. Jain LLP, without providing any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the said party

PREMLATA BAID,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XXVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in raising presumption in respect of recordings in documents seized from the premises of a third party viz. Shri Narendra Shyamsukha, in the unrelated case of the appellant. 2(g) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of rs.14